GameBanshee Forums

So, as long as I'm disgruntled, there's another topic I want to bring up: what has happened to good old Fantasy?!? What started the trend we're seeing in NWN and Argyle? (Read my topic in the NWN discussion about abilities and refer to the magic-hating policy in Argyle.) I've seen a ton of praise for the "low magic campaign" concept.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the appeal in playing Bert the Accountant as he begins his warrior training. Bert's excited because, if he survives the deadly world of adventuring, by the time he begins his fifth level of warrior training he should be strong enough to inflict a whole extra point of damage to his enemies. And he and his five friends might find a +1 magic longsword they can split (or squabble over). Of course, they'll have to keep the townsfolk from killing Jane the Secretary-Mage, or they'll never even know it's magic.

I want my fantasy to be fantastic! I want my heroes to be full of testosterone and bravado. I want to see intelliget, but large-breasted, women using sex appeal as a secret weapon. I want wizards with real arcane might. I want magic and mayhem!

I'm already a normal guy, living in a mundane world -- I don't want to roll-play a mail clad real estate agent!

I want my fantasy to be fantastic! I want my heroes to be full of testosterone and bravado. I want to see intelliget, but large-breasted, women using sex appeal as a secret weapon. I want wizards with real arcane might. I want magic and mayhem!

I agree.
ALthough i don't want a world where we have 50 war wizards protecting every city or where all rivers flow backwards and mooses like to talk with dwarves, but something in between.
Maybe something like Forgotten Realms but not as magical.
Not as little magic as Dragonlance, where most adventuring parties don't have mages and where you won't find one in any inn except the special one in Solace(Inn of Last Home).
I'd likes something in between. Where you could find a mage stopping over at a decent tavern. Another buying goods from not to specilaized merchants.
A city with a few mid level wizards that have their labs and all.
Where atleast a third of adventuring parties have mages in them.
I don't want in like FR, because i feel that mages are waaaay to powerful. A level 20 fighter stands no chance against a level 20 mage. Sure fighter has saving throws that will protect him/her from instant death, but then a mage has chain congitency, and could be immune to the warrior attacks for a few rounds. Meanwhile the mage can cst greater malison, contagion, and then finger of death. its all over.

Like i said mid level magic. Not too much, but not where a selected few can become a mage, and definetely not where mages are killed on sight.

I agree somewhat whit you Saigo although .....
The mage-hate(tm) in Argyle is a means to introduce a novel aspect of roleplay.
For wizardy-types (which I plan on playing) it introduces new and complex means of play.
So the "low-level magic worlds" are not just a way to "even" out scores against wizards (like "we" feel "we" are powerful enough? - no - gimme me more spells and wands ) but also to make the play more complex (in some worlds).

The "buffness" of characters - as posted in your other thread - is relative.
If you are the extreme hero - you need extreme encounters otherwise it will be to boring to play.
Remember lvl. 30+ sorcerer in BG2.
Encounters will be differentiated to the players "level"/"buffness"

@Thorin: I agree with you a long way through (except mages are not to powerful ).


In conclusion - I'd just like to restate that the level of encounters will be relative (somewhat - no need as a lvl. 1-20 going up alone against a Dragon or the likes) to the level of characters and his stats.

I also like my "hero" to be heroristic(hmm, is this even a word) - but I also want a game and somewhat "realistic" gameplay where I not have to attacks liches all the time to get a thrill.

[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

ROTFL! Saigo, that was the funniest post I've seen in a while! I hear your arguement, but it'll take a while before I can collect myself and respond. Clever! Kudos!

I agree with you in many ways. I posted in your thread at the Argyle boards and will restate it here. I think the Argyllian Mage Hate (tm) Xandax mentioned is merely a tool for roleplay. I don't think it will permeate the entire gaming experience. I think it is meant to give a different roleplaying experience to gamers, a distinctive "Argyle" flavor to the setting, though I doubt the flavor will overpower the rest of the experience.

Are mages a bit tougher to play in Argyle? Sure, but no more so than a paladin would be to play in The (now defunct) Harbour or an evil character would br in a predominantly Lawful Good society. Will it still be fun to play a spell-caster in Argyle. Absolutely, and many of us look forward to doing so once it gets up and running.

Gentlemen, I agree that good role-play is the important thing in this game. My point is still that I want to play Conan, Elric, Fafhrd, or the Gray Mouser. I'm already playing a mundane staff illustrator IRL who can only swing a sword for about 30 seconds before his arms give out. Playing one in a fantasy RPG is not quite stimulating enough.

Xandax, I understand that the encounters will be relative, but weaker monsters are not the solution. I don't like the idea that a common peasant with a sword can kill a goblin, either. The goblins need to be nastier than that, or why would we need heroes to save the townsfolk.

As far as magic is concerned, I agree that too many PC wizards can get out of hand, and I don't want to play in Piers Anthony's Xanth, either. But I think the reason mages are too powerful at high levels, the reason so many players want to be mages, is that the spells are too powerful.

Originally posted by Saigo:
<STRONG><snip>

Xandax, I understand that the encounters will be relative, but weaker monsters are not the solution. I don't like the idea that a common peasant with a sword can kill a goblin, either. The goblins need to be nastier than that, or why would we need heroes to save the townsfolk.
<snip></STRONG>

So you would like a 1. lvl adventurer to be a "buffed up" Conan the Babarian type?
Then you can create your modules this way
There is a lot of talk around the net of people wanting to make say 50 point modules.

Other people (ei. Argyle and Bioware)creating modules might want a 1. lvl character to be more "mundane" and thus will create their modules this way.

This is (hopefully one of) the glory of NwN

(And BTW they will not "tone down" monsters for odinary 25-30 point character modules/games - they would have to "tone them up" for the other modules (ei. 4d6))

Originally posted by Xandax:
[QB]So you would like a 1. lvl adventurer to be a "buffed up" Conan the Babarian type?
Then you can create your modules this way
There is a lot of talk around the net of people wanting to make say 50 point modules.
[QB]

That's not quite my point. I want to believe my character can reach that level, and you have to start with the right physical tools to get there. The ability scores are strictly potential -- it's experience that makes your character really powerful.

I don't want this to get out of hand. I was just disapointed that my rogue had to stretch to his absolute limit just to aquire his class skills and would never be able to use bonuses for extra goodies. God help a non-human theif; he does't even start with enough skill points to do his job! And I was shocked to realize that spellcasters would have to use every single bonus point just to cast the spells allowed by their level. I would just like to be able to aquire my class skills along the way and be able to use bonuses to enhance my character. The way I envisioned 3rd Edition rules was that any two mages started out the same, but one might choose to become stronger while another chose to become faster and another chose to boost his charisma so that he could be a diplomat (or whatever). The way the point buy system works, all three mages have to spend points on the same skills and abilities just to keep up. There's no way to stand out.

Of course, this is all really more appropriate for my other thread, but I guess it's related.

Moved to the NwN forum from the BoTB forum, since it is not really BoTB related.

Originally posted by Saigo:
<STRONG>Bert's excited because, if he survives the deadly world of adventuring, by the time he begins his fifth level of warrior training he should be strong enough to inflict a whole extra point of damage to his enemies. And he and his five friends might find a +1 magic longsword they can split (or squabble over).</STRONG>

In a setting like this, that whole point will amount to quite something. I like that. Makes it that much more special. Either that, or you can squabble over the Hackmaster +12. Either way you squabble over a significant bonus, but in the case of the Hackmaster you've already dumped 20 +6 longswords in your Bag of Holding because they weren't special.

Moreover, low damage roll modifiers mean that the die part of the damage roll carries more weight. This increases the random factor in battles, which leads to more player deaths (assuming players only pick fights they think they can win). I don't like reducing battles to: "Let's see... I have 150 HP and take about 20 damage per round, he has 200 HP and I do about 30 damage per round... I win in seven rounds.".

As for the mages... The spells are way too powerful indeed. A mage should not stand a chance against a warrior in a duel. A mage can fill in as a thief (Dimension Door, Knock, Sleep, Charm Person, Teleport, Polymorph to bird) or gather a wealth of information through Divination spells. He's the party utility man; he has an answer for almost every situation if given the chance to prepare. The warrior can only fight, so if he's matched even in that by mages, what good is he?

Originally posted by Xyx:
<STRONG>In a setting like this, that whole point will amount to quite something. I like that. Makes it that much more special. Either that, or you can squabble over the Hackmaster +12. Either way you squabble over a significant bonus, but in the case of the Hackmaster you've already dumped 20 +6 longswords in your Bag of Holding because they weren't special.

Moreover, low damage roll modifiers mean that the die part of the damage roll carries more weight. This increases the random factor in battles, which leads to more player deaths (assuming players only pick fights they think they can win). I don't like reducing battles to: "Let's see... I have 150 HP and take about 20 damage per round, he has 200 HP and I do about 30 damage per round... I win in seven rounds.".

As for the mages... The spells are way too powerful indeed. A mage should not stand a chance against a warrior in a duel. A mage can fill in as a thief (Dimension Door, Knock, Sleep, Charm Person, Teleport, Polymorph to bird) or gather a wealth of information through Divination spells. He's the party utility man; he has an answer for almost every situation if given the chance to prepare. The warrior can only fight, so if he's matched even in that by mages, what good is he?</STRONG>

Your first two points are good points. I agree, from my experience with ToB, that it's no fun any more when you can't even carry all the uberweapons you find! I do think, though, that there is a level inbetween that will advance a PC further from the mundane everyman without becoming a Hackmaster campaign.

As for as spellcasters go, You are absolutely right. I am still struggeling with a solution for that one. The old system of level progression, in which magic-users advanced more slowly, was a good idea. Maybe certain spells need to be reexamined, raising the spell level of some of them. At the highest levels, a mage should be very, very powerful, but shouldn't be able to anihilate a fighter of equal level. Those high level no-save spells should be addressed, possibly by allowing a save for characters with the same level as the caster (or greater, of course).

I feel a mage should be more like a thief. A utility kind of guy. Someone that banishes ghosts that are immune to weapons, removes protective runes from treasure chests, polymorphs into a bird to deliver a message, dispels enemy enchantments... Not someone who mows down orcs by the hundreds.

Originally posted by Xyx:
<STRONG>I feel a mage should be more like a thief. A utility kind of guy. Someone that banishes ghosts that are immune to weapons, removes protective runes from treasure chests, polymorphs into a bird to deliver a message, dispels enemy enchantments... Not someone who mows down orcs by the hundreds.</STRONG>

I've actually been thinking more about this. You're still right, but I think they should become more of a significant force as they gain higher levels. The thing is, the serious horde-obliterating and instant-death spells should be elevated to Epic level. Even Fireball shouldn't come until closer to 10th or 12th level.

I suggest you take a look at the spell lists, and see what happens if you remove all of the direct offensive spells, leaving charms, summonings, etc. In other words, the mage is not able to directly cause injury or death via spell; he must control another, summon a proxy (monster, demon, whatever), or assume a more offensive form and attack physically. I haven't looked yet, but I bet that evens things up a bit.

But remember that one arrow at the first 2 levels could actually be enough to take down a wizard

Originally posted by Xandax:
<STRONG>But remember that one arrow at the first 2 levels could actually be enough to take down a wizard </STRONG>

Right, but defensive spells are the answer for that. Wizards are hard to keep alive while they are at lower levels, but, as the game has developed, so many powerful spells have been added, even at the lower levels, that the balance has been skewed.

Wait, I've got another possible solution: offensive spells are just harder to find. You only get to learn 3 spells of your choice at each level, right? If it's harder to find other spells to learn, you have to make wiser choices at each level increase.

That could be a good solution if that was what you aimed at.
But also remember this is not BG2 where the mage/wizard already starts competent - but BG1 where you started with a few spells.
(unless you script modules for "high-end characters of course )

I agree that a wizard can become truly powerfull at high levels but so can ei. the cleric and rogues (the latter can avoid area damage allthougther).
It will be rare that a wizard would survive to become competent unless this wizard has some good people to travel with

But okay - no-save spells like imprisonment are devestating and I can understand your grudge against these

[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

Originally posted by Xyx:
<STRONG>I feel a mage should be more like a thief. A utility kind of guy. Someone that banishes ghosts that are immune to weapons, removes protective runes from treasure chests, polymorphs into a bird to deliver a message, dispels enemy enchantments... Not someone who mows down orcs by the hundreds.</STRONG>

I agree there. Raistlin comes to mind, for me. Even though he had some deadly offensive spells, most of those he casted were like 'sleep' or some divination spells to help his friends through, but still had one or two lightning bolts up his sleeve.

How often can your mage cast his "allmighty" spells? What if he can three times that fireball but have to kill 5 hordes of Orcs? Pissing off the orc boss with melf's acid arrow?

Someone that can only cast three Fireballs should not go around and p1ss off five Orc armies...

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
<STRONG>
I agree there. Raistlin comes to mind, for me. Even though he had some deadly offensive spells, most of those he casted were like 'sleep' or some divination spells to help his friends through, but still had one or two lightning bolts up his sleeve.</STRONG>

Ok, i have a few things to spew out, first off, most of the famous books featuring wizards with these great abilities were written as a story, some great hero, elminster and raistlin are probably 2 of the most famous D&D wizards, but you have to keep in mind that these are chronicles of one person out of several millions inhabiting faerun or krynn, for every one super character (which most books are written like that) there are several thousand non super character types, mostly played by npc's. the whole point of being able to be powerfull in a D&D game is because you are getting the chance to play someone above the norm. after all, when would an alchamist truly wish to go on adventure, they are in reality business men looking to make some money off people who use their products. another point id like to make, raistlin was powerfull, VERY powerfull, but, at a price, the test he took costed him his health, so, character creation wise, the DM basicly said, "ok, you can have an 18 int, wis, and cha, BUT your going to pay penulty in str dex and con" the reason raistlin survived was because of his brother.

now, on to more spew, i normally play thieves and rangers in most campaigns, however, i am going to back up the magic users in this arguement. Mages are not utility people, nor should they ever be, mages are supposed to have powerfull spells, they are supposed to be able to kill you at high enough level, since when does magic take a step aside to a sword? yeah swords can look pretty, cut people up and gives you a fair duel, but then, who said mages were supposed to chivalric? The thing about magic is that it is one of those things that, like in real life power, corrupts. Consider people like bill gates and steve jobs modern day mages, these guys were not athletes, or gymnists, or olympians of any sort, so they found magic, magic in computers, and because of people like them, our lives got a HECK of a lot easier. Same with mages, unless your barbarian is just plain STUPID, no one in their right mind would want to tackle a horde of orcs by themselves, i dont care how good your character is, no one can deffend themselves against 15 orcs, so wizards let the barbarians have an easier life by fireballing the orcs down to 6 or 7.

I'll state once more that i play thieves, and my job normally as a thief in a party is search for traps, pick locks and find sercret doors, but in battle, if there is a really tough NPC that my group is fighting, my job is to slink away from the fight, move around the fight, and come out of the shadows with a backstab for double to quad damage, there by probably killing the NPC, or if not, putting a serious hurting on them. I think that people are forgetting the roles of PC's in parties, every one is all "gung-ho" about getting in a room and hacking and slashing, that they forget to think, become organized and be a smart party, instead of a dumb party. I am in a live gaming group, and we got some dumb hack and slashers in it, their characters more often than not charge into a situation relying on thier "buffness" and wind up dead, rerolling new characters and repeating the whole thing again.

one last rant - i hate 3rd edition rules

If you look at Lord of the Rings, you'll see a wizard that makes 99% of his kills with his sword...